Pastor John Wright

Acts 4 represents a very important chapter in our story, one that challenges us to perform today in faithful manners. It is the follow-up to the healing upon which we've spent the last two weeks -- a work of mercy conducted explicitly in the name of the resurrected Jesus by Peter and John. This week we follow the aftermath.

To understand this we must get rid of any distinctions between "religion" and "politics". What the passage discusses is particular concrete allegiances to particular leaders and their representatives. Neither the temple authorities nor Peter and John are "religious figures". What we have here is conflicing political orders and allegiances -- one to the contemporary political status quo and the other to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ and the Good of his Kingdom.

Maybe as a background to this story, it would be helpful to look at Luke 22:1-6, 47-52; 23:1-10 -- why don't the priests, captain of the temple guard, the Sadducees, the high priest, and the Sanhedrin like Jesus? What is their concern in eliminating Jesus? Who are they trying to serve?

Now read 4:1-4: What are the two different responses to Peter and John's teaching about the resurrection of Jesus? Why would so many believe, yet the authorities be disturbed?

Read vv. 5-7: Why would there be a trial? What have Peter and John done? Why is this wrong in the eyes of the authorities?

Read Peter's third sermon(!!), this time to the Sanhedrin, in vv. 8-12: Why does he appeal to the healed man and the resurrected Jesus? What do you think is the nature of the salvation in this context mentioned by Peter in v. 12 (I'm not searching for any specific answer, but it is an interesting use of the world "salvation" and tied directly and exclusively to the name of Jesus). Why does Peter talk beyond the elders and authorities to all the people of Israel? Who really is on trial here?

Vv. 13-18: What dilemma does Peter's speech leave the authorities? Why do they have to withdraw into private consultation? Why are they trying to stop the spreading of this group? What is the best solution they can come up with? Why? If Peter and John obeyed them, what would happen to their works of mercy? Why?

Vv.19-20: How do Peter and John respond to the decision of the Sanhedrin? Why? How is the real authority that they must obey? What is the basis of their declaration of disobedience (v. 20).

V. 21-22: Why do the Sanhedrin respond with physical threats? Why can they do nothing else?

This passage is very important for an understanding of our relationship as the church to other political authorities. Obviously, Peter and John here explicitly embrace a type of what we might call "civil disobedience". Maybe we should better call it the disobedience for evangelism. What is the basis for refusing to obey the authorities? What type of activities would call for such disobedience today? Disobedience to the authorities by the greater authority of God and the church is not an end in itself. What is the positive condition for disobedience? What is the positive result of obedience to God (and thereby disobedience to the autorities)? Finally, what type of character must we have to express obedience to Christ and the works of mercy to the authorities?